


:. '-^^0^ o^. 





%''''"''\<^ 










^bv 













s^^ 



-y-^^ 







.♦. -> 



, " » , 







%. *•'■ 











• JsStovA . ^ 












^. 



■/ '5.'^ ^^ -y^^^/ j^ "^ 




































.s"^"^ 








^ f// 



SPEECH 

OP 
OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE, 



THE MISSOURI QUESTION, 



O'-T-IVERKD TV TOE nOtlSE op llEPnr.SEWTATIVE9 OF THE CVITED 

STATES, FEBRUARY 21, 1820. .7, . t^ 

-i^-^-:. t- • 

Mr. (chairman : There are many considerations 
which seem to me not only to justify, but to render ne- 
cessary the amendment proposed by the genileman 
from New-York, (Mr. Taylor) to the bill now under 
discussion. Some of the most important of these, I 
shall endeavor to explain to the committee. 

it will, I fear, be hardly thought respectful, at this 
late period of the debate, to enquire what it is that 
we propose to do, by the bill on your table. Yet, a 
correct answer to this enquiry would, in my opinion, 
go far to prove, that very many of the objections 
made to the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
from New- York, have little or no bearing on the real 
merits of the present question. This is by no means 
an unusual case. Il will, I believe, be generailly 
found that we err in our opinions, principaiiy because 
we do not understand ourse/uss; and ihat we differ 
from others, principally because we do not under- 
stand i/i em. What, then, is the real nature of this 
Transaction ? The people of Missouri have applied 
to Congress for leave to form a constitution, and to be 
admitted into the Union as an independent state. By 
the bill now under discussion, we are about to inform 
them, in answer to their memocial, what are the terms 
1 



:• ^^\ 



% 



a V<\'b. 



\"r 



and conditions on which we are willing, at this time, 
to grant their request. The first of these conditions 
is, that the new state shall consist of a certain extent 
of territory, different from that proposed in their me- 
morial, and different from that embraced within their 
present limits, and in both these respects differing 
from their re(|uest : the second is, that their constitu- 
tion shall be republican : and the third, which is the 
object of the present amendment, that they shall 
prevent the further introduction of slaves, and that 
the offspring of those already there shall be free — 
These three conditions are made indispensable to their 
becoming, at tjiis time, a member of the federal U- 
nion. Other terms are also proposed ; but these 
are offered only as the price of certain other stipula- 
tions, into which it is desired that Missouri should 
enter. They are, by the same act, authorized to call 
a convention, to determine whether it is expedient 
for them, at this time, and upon these conditions, to 
become a member of the union. If so, they are per- 
mitted to form a constitution, and are to be received 
without delay into our confederacy. 

This act, then, is simply an answer to the request 
of Missouri; and, without her consent and acceptance, 
it can have no binding force or effect on either party. 
If, when met in convention, her delegates should 
deem it inexpedient to accept our terms, there is an 
end at once of our act, Sc of all the measures growing 
out of it. Either party may propose new terms, or both 
remain in their present condition. We do not, there- 
fore, as has been so often asserted in this debate, un- 
dertake to form a constitution for the people of Mis- 
souri ; we do not impose upon them terms and con- 
ditions, which are to bind them without their con- 
sent ; nor do we, by this act, say that Missouri shall 
never be admitted, ifshe does not accept our present 
offers^ We merely inform her on what conditions 
we are willing, at </jis time, io receive her into the 
Union. Ifshe does not choose to accept them, we 
cannot, on ourpart, complain of her, because she has a 
right to reject our offers, Si to remain a territory ifshe 
pleases; nor can she complain of us,because it is univer- 
sally conceded that we are under no obligation to ad- 



mit her, at the preseiil session at least, liowever we 
maybe under the treaty, (a ciuestiun which 1 sliall 
presently examine) at some future perioil. The first 
enquiry, then, is, cm Congress propose this condi- 
tion, and can Missouri accept ii ? 

The right of Congress to achnit new states is deriv- 
ed from the third section of the fourth article of the 
constitution. " New stales nini/ lie admitted by the 
Congress iutn this Union " Tlic first thing to be re- 

; marked in this clause is, that it is a delegation of pow- 
er merely, and not a duty imposed. It is not said 
that Congress s/i«//, but that they matj admit new 

, states. The power to admit is granted, but no right 
is given by the constitution to any territory to compel 
Congress, against their will, to exert this power in 
its favor. It is not said, that, when any of our ter- 
ritories shall contain a certain number of inhabitants, 
60,000, for example, Congress sliall, whether they 
deem it expedient or not, admit them into the Union; 
but an authority merely is given, which they are to 
exert, or not, according to their own sound discre- 
tion. It is next to be obser\'cd, that the power here 
delegated, is expressed in the broadest possible terms; 
and, that, so tar as this clause is concerned, it is alto- 
gether without limitation or control. It follows, from 
this view of the subject, that there are three questions 
which Congress may discHss, whenever a territory 
asks admission into our Union as a state. First, is it 
expedient to admit her at all ? If one of the South 
American provinces should ask admission, we should 
probably I'eject the application as inexpedient ever to 
be granted. If, however, our decision should be to 
admit, a second question would arise, as to the time 
when this should be done, v/hether now, or at some 
future day ? But, in these two powers, Avhich it is 
conceded, on all sides, that we possess, is there not 
involved a third ; that of saying on what terms, not 
inconsistent with other parts of the constitution, this 
admission shall take place ? It might be expedient to 
admit, on certain conditions, a state, which we should 
be bound otherwise finally to reject. It might also 
be expedient, at the present time, to admit, on certain 
terms, a state, which, without this power, wc should 



be obliged to suspend, till, by the influence of oui 
laws, or by other causes, she should become accus- 
tomed to our manners, and assimilated to our political 
institutions. This interpretation of the Constitution 
is, therefore, equally beneficial to the Union, and to 
the territories applying for admission. 

But let us look again at this clause. "New states may 
be admitted, &c. ; but no new state shall be formed 
or erected within the jurisdiction of any other itate, 
&c. without the consent of tlie legislature of the sev- 
eral states concerned, as well as of the Congress." 
Here then is a limitation on the powers of Congress. 
When a state is to be admitted, formed within the 
limits of some other state, as in the case of Kentucky, 
or the more recent one of Maine, the consent of 
the parent state, as well as of Congress, is to be ob- 
tained ; and this consent may be, and in all instances 
has been, granted upon conditions In the first clause 
then the power to admit is given,without limitalion,and 
may therefore be exercised on such terms as the party 
consenting-shall prescribe, Scthe state to be admitted shall 
choose to accept ; but in the second this power is lim- 
ited, by requiring the agreement ot a third party, 
which, like the two former, may insist on its own con- 
ditions. The limitation in the one case, and not in 
the other, shows clearly that when the constitution in- 
tends to restrain a general delegation of power, it does 
so in express words ; and the inference is irresistible, 
that where the power is distinctly given, and no limi- 
tation is expressed, none was intended. The correct- 
ness of this very obvious rule of construction will not 
be denied, and it appears to me strictly applicable to 
the present case. To show this power, if possible, 
still more clearly, we need only refer to the journal of 
the convention that formed the constitution. We 
there find that this clause, as originally proposed, (p. 
80,) stood thus : " The legislature shall have power 
to admit new states into the Union, ok the same terms 
with the original states. " These latter words are not 
now to be found in the constitution. It was proposed 
then to limit the power of Congress on this s.ubject. 
That proposition was rejected by the Convention, and 
the power given in the broadest possible terms. I can 



hardly conceive a stronger case, and have heard of 
no answer attempted to this important fact. 

To Congress, then, is given the power of admissio)\ 
in its full extent, and with all its incidents. What, Mr. 
chairman, are these incidents? Suppose the states had 
reserved the right of admitting new members to them- 
selves, instead of giving it, as they have done, to Con- 
gress; can it be doubted that they might, in that case, 
have received into their confederacy new associates, 
upon such terms and conditions as the contracting 
parties might see fit mutually to adopt ? They surely 
might. And why, sir ? Merely because they possess- 
ed the power of admission. But, instead of retaining 
this power, they have transferred it to Congress. If 
we do not possess it, where does it reside ? Not in 
the states ; for they have nothing to do in the admis- 
sion of new members : nor in the people, as asserted 
by the gentleman from S. Carolina, (Mr. Lowndes,) 
who last addressed you. He did not speak with his 
usual accuracy when he said that the people, and not 
Congress, possessed the power to impose conditions 
on states about to be admitted into the Union. The 
people, sir, have reserved to themselves no such 
power, any more than they have reserved the power, 
for example, of declaring war. Their power to de- 
clare war they have transferred to Congress. Their 
power to admit new states they have, in like manner, 
transferred to Congress, and we have seen that this 
transfer is entire, with all its incidents, subject only to 
that general reservation which applies to all delegated 
power — that it shall be exerted in a manner not re- 
pugnant to other parts of the constitution. 

This brings me, sir, to enquire, what are the limi- 
tations imposed on Congress by the constitution, in 
the exercise of this power ? And, first, " The Unit- 
ed States shall guaranty to every state in this Union a 
lepublican form of government." They cannot, there- 
fore, if they were so absurd as to wish it, prescribe to 
a new state that her form of government should be 
anti-republican, or monarchical ; because the state, 
when admitted, would have a righ t to call on Congress 
for its guaranty of a different form. But this clause is 
not, as has been argued, an enlargement of the now- 
•1 



ers of Congress, but a limitailon upon those powers ; 
a stipulation in favor of tlie states, and against the 
general government. " To guaranty" does not mean 
to create, or cause to be created ; but simply to de- 
fend that which already exists. Yet Congress, to se- 
cure the existence of that which, when established, 
they are bound to defend, have in every case made it 
a condition, in admitting new states, that their form 
of government should be republican. In the same 
clause it is also provided, that Congress " shall pro- 
tect each of the states against domestic violence." Now, 
if their being bound to protect the states in the enjoy- 
ment of a republican form of government, authorises 
them to make such a form the condition ot their be- 
coming states, why may not they, upon the same 
ground, under the latter clause, prescribe the exclu- 
sion of slavery, as a condition ! Slavery is sure ulti- 
mately to produce <' domestic violence" wherever it 
exists. Foreseeing this, might not Congress say to a 
new state, we will not admit you, if you allow slaverj' 
to exist among you ; because we shall be obliged, un- 
der this clause, at some future period, to protect you 
against " domestic violence,"arising from the insurrec- 
tion and rebellion ofyour slaves? The right to anticipate 
and prevent an evil which they are bound, when it 
comes, to remove, is, in both cases, precisely the 
same; and ot the two evils, " domestic violence" is 
certainly much more likely to occur from the tolera- 
tion of slavery, than an anti-republican form of gov- 
ernment, lor want of an express stipulation to exclude 
it. Let mc not, however, be understood as deriving 
the power claimed in the present instance, from this 
clause of the constitution; but to those who think that 
they derive from this section alone, their right to pre- 
scribe a republican form ot government, this view of 
the subject cannot surely be without some degree of 
tveight. 

There is another obvious limitation on the power 
ofCongress in admitting new states, which re- 
sults from the nature of the compact. New states 
must be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights 
and privileges derived by the original states from 
the Constitution : otherwise they would not be admit 



ted into the same union with the rest. No condition 
can therefore be annexed to the admission of a state, 
which takes from her anjr constitutional, or, as it is 
more frequently called, any federal right; because 
this would be at variance with the admission itself, 
and therefore void ; as in any other case of a condi- 
tion annexed to a grant, inconsistent with the grant 
itself. 

This is a limitation on the powers of Congress 
in favor of the new states. Tliere is another which 
may perhaps be inferred in reference to the old. Con- 
gress can propose no condition to a new state, which, 
if accepted by her, would transfer to the Union any 
power to be exercised over other states, which had 
not been granted by the Constitution to the General 
Government ; because this would be to effect the 
political rights of third parties, without their own 
consent. And here permit me to say, that this limi- 
tation furnishes, in my view, a conclusive answer to 
the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Lowndes,) 
who, if I rightly understood him, founded his chief 
objection to this measure, on the supposed inability 
of Congress to acquire, by compact with new states, 
federal powers not conferred by the constitution on 
the general government, to be exercised over the 
other states ; and thus, in effect, to alter the consti- 
tution in a manner not provided for by that instru- 
ment. The soundness of this principle it is not ne- 
cessary here to controvert, or even to examine; since 
it is totally inapplicable, in my view of the subject, to 
the present bill. This amendment does not require 
the people of Missouri to transfer any portion oftheir 
sovereignty, or to invest the general government with 
any new authority, which they did not before possess, 
applicable to other members of the confederacy ; but 
only that they should renounce the power claimed 
for them, ot making slaves of their fellow men. It 
is the renunciation of a power merely, and not its 
transfer which is asked in this case. 

Subject, then, to these just and natural limitations., 
I can see nothing dangerous or alarming in the 
power claimed by Congress on this occasion. They 
can, on the one hand, deprive the new state of no 



s 

right or privilege conferred by the constitution on 
the original confederates ; and, on the other, can ac- 
quire for themselves no new power ov authority, to be 
exerted over the other states, without their consent, 
"When to this we add, that the terms proposed must 
in all cases be accepted by the new state, before they 
have any binding force ; and that the supreme Legis- 
lature of the Union acts for, and represents the only 
other party in interest, the people of the United 
States, I can perceive no weight whatever in the 
argument, so earnestly pressed upon us from the oth- 
er side, that this is a great and indefinite power, lia- 
ble to abuse, and therefore not to be presumed to ex- 
ist. Sir, an argument from the abuse of power is to- 
tally inapplicable, when the question is, whetlier we 
possess the power or not. What powers are more 
liable to abuse, than those, for instance, of making 
war and imposing taxes ? Yet no one will deny that, 
under the Constitution, we possess both these danger- 
ous and indefinite powers. I have endeavored to 
show that the right here claimed, is neither danger- 
ous nor indefinite; yet if it were both of these, this 
would be no proof that it was not conferred upon us 
by the Constitution ; though it might have been an 
argument with thelramersof thatinstrimientfor with- 
holding it from us. They did not see fit, however^ 
so to do, and for leaving this discretion in Congress, 
limited, as I have shown it to be, many good reasons 
might, I apprehend, be given. 

There is nothing, surely, in the nature of a confed- 
erated republic which renders it necessary for each 
nvember of the confederacy to possess the same state 
or municipal rights, any more than the same extent 
of territory, wealth, or population. Nor is it true, in 
point of fact, that they all enjoy the same privileges, 
or derive equal advantages, from the Union. Who 
does not see that Delaware and Rhode Island, for in- 
stance, gain more from their connexion with the U- 
nion, compared with what they contribute to its safe- 
ty or defence, than Massachusetts or New York ? 
But neither the large states, nor the small, have any 
just reason to complain, if they enjoy all the rights 
and immunities for which they stipulated on their ad- 



nu5sion into the Union. It is the same with Missourr. 
Acting for herself, by her own free will and choice, 
she will either accept or reject the terms we pro- 
pose. If she accepts, antl thus makes them her own, 
she thereby becomes a member of our Union; she 
acquires rights which she did not before possess ; ob- 
tains privileges which we arc not at this time obliged 
to grant ; and if, with good faith and fidelity, the U- 
nited States perform towards her all the stipulations 
of the contract, of what can she complain ? Whom 
has she to condemn ? What right of hers has been 
violated ? What privilege withdrawn ? What im- 
munity withheld ? It is, then, the utmost perversion 
of language to say, as the Honorable Speaker, (Mr. 
Clay,) does, that, if she accepts these terms, she will 
become a vassal and a slave ; or to argue, as he has, 
that this restriction is unjust, because it deprives her 
of the rights of self government and internal police. 
For where is the state, in this Union, which possesses 
these rights in their full extent ? When we are told 
that Missouri will not have the rights of self govern- 
ment, if she renounces the power claimed for her of 
depriving others of their right to freedom — not to ani- 
madvert here on the odious nature of the claim — is 
it not equally true, that all the other states are also 
deprived of the rights of self government ? Is it not 
an attribute of sovereignty, a rightof self government, 
to declare war, to enter into treaty or alliance with 
other states, grant letters of marque and reprisal, coin 
money, emit bills of credit, and pass bills of attain- 
der ? Yet no state in the Union can do any of these 
things. Arc they, therefore, degraded to the rank of 
vassals and slaves, and deprived of the rights of self 
government? Surely not. And why not, sir? Be- 
cause they voluntarily surrendered these and other 
rights to the Union. The original states became 
members of the confederacy, after mature delibera- 
tion, not because any one of them approved of every 
part of the constitution, but because they thought 
the advantages to be derived from the Union greater, 
on the whole, than the sacrifices, [and no two made 
the same,) which that Union required of them. Let 
Missouri do the same ; and whether she determines 



10 

at tliis time to become a state, or remain a terriiory 
for the present, the act uill he her own, and perform- 
ed witli quite as much freedom of choice, as the other 
states enjoyed when the same question was put to 
them. 

Having thus, Mr. Chairman, proved, as I trust, 
that Congress lias by the constitution a right to pro- 
pose terms and conditions to territories applying for 
admission, I ask the attention of the committee, while 
I pass briefly in review the several st.ites admitted into 
the Union, since the present form of government was 
adopted, and et.quire whether the conclusions which 
I have thus drawn fiom the constitution itself, are 
confirmed, or contradicted, by the practice and the de- 
clarations of those who have gone before us on this 
subject. Tkis field has been already explored by o- 
thers, but it is still rich in matter, most pertinent to 
this occasion. If, from this examination, it should ap- 
pear that the new states have uniformly been admit- 
ted, upon terms and conditions, many of them effect- 
ing the highest attributes of sovereignty, and none of 
them applicable to the original states, it will not be 
easy to persuade me, that the present Congress has 
less power and less authority in this respect, than its 
predecessors. 

The first state admitted, wasKentucky. It was origin- 
ally a part of Virginia, and \vas allowed by her to be- 
come an independent state upon certain " terms and 
conditions." By the fourth of these conditions. Ken- 
tucky was required to stipulate, that she would never 
tax the lands of non-residents, higher than those of 
residents. By the seventh, she was required to leave 
the navigation of the Ohio free to all citizens of the 
United States. If these, and other terms were accept- 
ed by Kentucky, they were " to become a solemM 
compact', mutually 'binding on the parties, and 
unalterable by either without the consent of the other." 
These conditions were accepted by Kentucky, and 
she was admitted into the Union in 1791, subject to 
these restrictions. Such is the history of the first 
state formed under the present constitution. But, 
)iow does this agree, sir, with the doctrine maintained 
pn the other side .' Every new state, says the gentle- 



n 

man (Mr. Lowndes,) from South Carolina, must have 
the same slate rights, the same authority, and the same 
jurisdiction in all cases whatever, within its own lim- 
its, as the original thiitccn. The very word state, says 
the Speaker, (Mr. Clay,) implies a political commu- 
nity, possessing exactly the same rights and powers, 
and in all respects resembling the parties to the origi- 
nal compact. It is also on this same definition of the 
word stale, that nearly the whole argument of the gen- 
tleman (Mr. Barbonr) from Virginia, against this a- 
mendment, rests. But, will this definition apply to 
Kentucky ? No matter by whom these restrictions 
were imposed, whether by Virginia, or by the Union; 
it is sufficient for my argument, that Kentucky does 
not possess the same stiite rights which beJong to the 
old states. In New Hampsliire, for example, we can 
tax the lands of non-rtsidents higherthan those of re- 
sidents. In Kentucky, they cannot. Kentucky, then, 
does not possess all the attributes of sovereignty, of 
self-government and internal police, which belong to 
the original states. But is she therefore degraded, 
made a vassal and a slave? Her champion on this 
floor, the most distinguished of her sons (Mr. Clay,) 
has proudly answered no — has proudly told us, that 
she stands, in all respects, unincumbered and erect. 
And why, sir, is she not degraded by these condi- 
tions ? The answer is obvious ; because she consent- 
ed to them freely ; because she parted voluntarily with 
certain rights, as the condition of obtaining certain 
other rights. No more will iNlissouri be degraded, if, 
with a view to sirr,ilar advantages, she renounces the 
odious power claimed for her, ol making slaves of 
men. 

The next state admitted was Vermont. Her con- 
stitution declared all men free. No conditions were 
annexed by Congress to her admission. 

Tennessee comes next in the list of new states. She 
was formed out of territory ceded to the United 
States by North Carolina, on various" express con- 
ditions, and subject thereto ;" one of these was, that 
the ordinance of 1787, so often mentioned in this de- 
bate, should be extended to her, except the article 
relating to slavery. Another was, that the lands of 



12 

non-resident proprietors should not be taxed higher 
than those of residents. In 1796, she was admitted 
into the Union" on an equal footing with the original 
states, in all respects whatsoever." As this expression 
here first occurs, in admitting a new state, it may not 
be improper to enquire into its meaning as applied to 
this subject. We have already seen that the United 
States acquired this territory on certain '-express con- 
ditions," on which alone they could hold it; that one 
of these (not to mention others,) deprived the future 
state of a right — that of taxing non-residents higher 
than residents — which belonged clearly to the ori- 
ginal thirteen states. This expression could not 
then mean that Tennessee should possess all the state 
rights enjoyed by any other state in the Union ; for 
this would have been to violate the contract with 
North Carolina. Nor didT'ennessee so understand it; 
for she incorporated the provisions of the deed of ces- 
sion into her constitution, and thus in express terms 
became a party to the compact. The " equal footing" 
here spoken of, is, then, an equality of feder.il rights 
merely; and in no other sense is the expression appli- 
cable to any of the new states, except Vermont. 

The next state admitted was Ohio — the fairest, the 
brightest, the most vigorous of all your offspring. 
That she is so, that she has increased with a rapidity 
surpassing all example in the history of mankind, till 
within the short space of a single generation (for the 
first settlers are still alive) she has filled her capa- 
cious borders, so that they already overflow, with a 
race of hardy, intelligent, and virtuous cultivators of 
the soil, is confessedly owing to its being made a con- 
dition of her existence, both as a territory, and as a 
state, that she should exclude, what we now require 
Missouri to exclude, the foul plague of Slavery from 
her bosom. With such an example before us, it 
seems almost impossible to hesitate, as to the course 
we ought now to pursue. The north-western territory, 
otit of which Ohio was formed, was ceded to the Uni- 
ted States principally by Virginia. In 1787, an ordi- 
nance was passed by the old Congress for its tempo- 
rary government, and for its final disposition. This 
celebrated ordinance contained various " articles of 



IS 

compact, between the original states.and the people and 
states in the said territory," which were " forever to 
remain unalterable, unless by common consent." 

I shall have occasion hereafter to advert more par- 
ticularly lo these articles ; I will here only add, that 
the sixth provided, that there should be neither slave- 
ry nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, 
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes. The 
proposed rcstiiction on Missouri is copied verbatim 
i'rom this article. In 1802, Congress authorized the 
pcopleof Ohio to form a constitution, " provided that 
the same, when formed, shall be Republican, and not 
repugnant to the ordinance of July 13th, \78T." The 
act also contained other conditions, one of which was, 
that the United States should be at liberty, at any 
future period, lo extend the limits of Ohio, by adding 
to it certain other territory therein described Tiicse 
terms, together with those contained in the ordinance, 
were accepted by Ohio ; and she was admitted into 
the Union, " upon an equal footing," so says the law, 
« with the original states, in all respects whatever." 
Here then is a third state, with the same federal 
riglits, but with state rights inferior to those of the 
original thirteen. 

The next state admitted was Louisiana. By the 
treaty of April 30th, 1803, the province of Louisiana 
was ceded to the United States, " in full sovereignty," 
by the French Republic. By this treaty the United 
States acquired an extent of territory greater than all 
their former possessions. The first question natu- 
rally suggested by this important fact, is, whether 
the President and Senate had authority ,under the con- 
stitution, to make this acquisition; to purchase, for the 
general government, without the consent of the se- 
veral states,a tcrritory,out of which twenty new states, 
may be formed ? whether, in short, they could law- 
fully acquire, found, and govern an empire, without 
their original limits, of such vast extent that it may 
in time become more powerful than the parent coun- 
try itself, and eventually hold all the original members 
of the republic in complete subjection? If we look 
to the constitution for ar; ansv, er to these cnquiiics. 



14 

we shall find there no express authority given to aiiy 
branch of the government to purchase foreign territo- 
ry. Do we know, sir, what arc to be the eftects of 
this mighty cession ? Have we suflicicntly reflected 
on the entire change, the total revolution, which this 
purchase has made, or will make, in all our relations, 
foreign and domestic, internal and exterior ? To 
those who know the care and anxiety with which the 
delicate balance of the constitution was adjusted, it 
will not seem probable, that either the south ot the 
north, jealous as they were of each other's influence, 
intended, incidentally, and without express terms, to 
confer on Congress apovferto throw into the scales — 
not indeed the sword of the Gaul — but a territory lar- 
ger than the Gaul ever conquered, or the Roman, in 
the height and arrogance of power, ever added to his 
empire. 

But, if it be thus doubtful whether the general go- 
vernment possesses, under the constitution, a right, 
not expressly delegated, to add indefinitely to our 
empire, it is not in my mind at all doubtful, whe- 
ther the President and Senate, under the treaty-mak- 
ing power, can purchase territory, with a stipulation 
compelling Congress (as it is contended we aie now 
compelled) to admit that territory into the Union, 
■whether they will or not. 

The power to admit new States is given exclu- 
sively to Congress ; but this would be virtually to 
transfer it to the President and Senate alone. The 
authors of this treaty did not so understand it. I have 
the best authority for saying that one president at 
least, (Mr. Madison) was of opinion, (and so expressed 
himself at the time,) that this part of the treaty could 
not be executed, without an amendment of the Con- 
stitution. This was, indeed, the general opinion of 
the best informed statesmen at that period. I will 
mention only two, both of them of the highest stand- 
ing in the parts of the country to which they belonged. 
"1 am free to confess," said the present Secretary of 
State (Mr. Adams) when this treaty came before the 
SeEate in 1 804, "that the third article contains engage- 
ments, placing us in a dilemma from which I see no 
possible mode of extricating ourselves, but by an 



15 

amendment, or rather an addition to the Constitution." 
rhis was said in answer to the objection, that the 
treaty provided for the admission of the territory, ae 
a state, into the Union, and was therefore unconstitu- 
ttonah He admitted the objection, and proposed to 
avoid it, by an amendment of the Constitution. Mr. 
Taylor of Virginia, on the contrary, denied that the 
treaty contained any such stipulation. "The words 
of ll:e treaty arc," said he, "literally satisfied by in- 
corporating ihtm (the inhabitants) into the Union, as 
a Territorify aiul not as a State. The citizens of the 
Territories arc citizens of the United Slates, and have 
all the rights of citizenship — but, these do not include 
those political rights which arise from state govern- 
ments, and which are dissimilar in different states." If it 
had been then urged, as it nov/ is, that Congress were 
bound to admit Louisiana, or Missouri, without delay, 
and without conditions, into the Union as a state, and 
that whatever might be our rights, under the constitu- 
tion, they were taken away by the treaty; Mr. Adams 
would have answered, " you have no right to admit 
Vhem at all, till you have amended the constitution :'" 
■and Mr. TayJor would have said, that "admission 
as a territory, was all that the treaty required." The 
same opinions were, on that occasion, even more 
strongly expressed in the House of Representatives, 
I refer to these high authorities, Mr. Chairman, 
merely to show that, in the opinion of those who ne- 
gotiated, and tirose who ratified, this treaty, it could 
not have been intended to confer on the people of 
Missouri any peculiar rights, not possessed by other 
territories of the United States, and consequently 
that they 'stand on no better footing in this respect, 
than other territories applying for admission. Other 
considerations lead us to the same conclusion. 

Treaties are declared by the constitution to be " the 
supreme law of the land ;" but they are supreme on- 
ly witliin the limits assigned them by that instrument, 
'i'here may I)e an unconstitutional treaty, though re- 
gularly formed and ratified, as well as an unconstitu- 
tional law, though regularly introduced and enacted j 
;!nd both would be eouailv void, and of no binding- 



16 

force or effect. The power to admit new slates is 
given, with all its incidents, to Congreas, and not to .« 
the President and Senate inerely. If, therefore, Lou- 
isiana was acquired on conditions which operated in 
the smallest degree to lessen, to abridge, or to vary 
the constitutional rights of Congress, with respect to 
her admission or rejection, with respect to the time 
when, or the terms upon which, she should be admit- 
ted ; the {reaty, so far as it attempted to interfere with 
the constitutional powers of Congress on this sub- 
ject, was void in itself, and could, of course, confer 
no new rights on Missouri. This, however, is going 
upon the supposition, that the treaty is inconsistent 
with the proposed restriction. Lut, if we turn to (hat 
instrument, no such inconsistency will be found. "The 
inhabitants of the ceded territory"says the tliird article, 
which alone relates to this subject, "shall be incor;)0- 
rated in the Union of the United States, and admit- 
ted, as soon as possible, accordi)!^ to the pi inciples of 
the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the 
rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the 
United States." The inhabitants, then, are to be ad- 
mitted " according to the principles of the federal 
constitution." If, therefore, by the constitution, we 
have the right here claimed, it was not the intention 
of the treaty, any more than it would have been in the 
powerof its authors, to deprive us of it. And in this 
point of view, also, we may lay the treaty altogether 
out of sight, in deciding the present question. 

But let us look again, sir, to the provisions of this 
treaty. The inhabitants are to be admitted, to all ' the 
rights, advantages and immunities, of citizens of the 
United States.' Now, sir, the power to hold slaves is 
fortunately not one of these rights, advantages, or im- 
munities. No man can hold another in perpetual 
bondage, by any authority derived from the constitu- 
tion of the United States. For, if he could, then 
might slaves be held in New-Hampshire, for exam-, 
pie, or in any of the other free states; because ' the 
rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the 
United States,* conferred by the constitution, are the 
same in every part of the Union. But, none will pre- 



17 

lend that slaves can be held in New-Hampshire, or 
ill the other free states. 

It is only in consetiuence of an authority derived 
from the laws of particular states that slaves can be 
held in any part of the Union. There is nothing, 
then, in the treaty, inconsistent with the proposed re- 
striction, because the treaty confers only federal rights,^ 
and the power to hold slaves is confessedly not one of 
these lights. In consequence of the nature of our 
government, every man in this country has a double 
relation and character to sustain; first, as a citizen 
of the United States, and, secondly, as a citizen of 
some particular slate. In each of these characters 
he enjoys rights which, in the other, do not belong 
to him, and has duties to perform which the other 
does not impose. It is federal rights only which the 
general government can confer; and, by adverting to 
this obvious distinction, we perceive at once that the 
proposed restriction on slavery leaves the people of 
Missouri in " the full enjoyment of all the rights, ad- 
vantages, and immunities of citizens of the United 
•Btatcs." Here, then, is a literal compliance with the 
terms of the treaty. Its intention is equally obvious. 
The United States could not have intended to bind 
themselves to any thing inconsistent with the consti- 
tution, for they refer expressly to it for their meaning. 
Isor could France have intended to secure for these 
people any privileges not enjoyed by other territories 
of the United Stales, or to obtain for them an admis- 
sion into the Union on terms more favorable than had 
been granted to other territories. Now, the only ter- 
ritory admitted before the purchase of Louisiana, was 
Ohio; and, in that case, this very prohibition of sla- 
very had been imposed, France, then, if she had 
looked to the terms on wliich territories had been, 
and were to be, admitted, must have expected that 
this very measure would be adopted which we now 
propose. I am justified, therefore, in saying that it 
violates neither the terms of the treaty nor the intep.- 
tion of the parties. 

In 1804, the province of Louisiana was divided into 
two territorial governments. In 1811, Cangresspass- 
ecVan act to enable the people of the Orleans territory, 
2 • 



18 

now the state of Louisiana, to form a constitution 
" upon the conditions hereinafter mentioned." These 
conditions were numerous and important. Among 
other things, it was provided that their constitution 
should contain the fundamental principles of civil 
and religious liberty ; that their laws, records, and 
legislative and judicial proceedings, should be kept in 
the English langM age; that lands belonging to citizens 
of the United States residing without the said state 
should never be taxed higher than those of residents. 
These and other conditions were accepted by the 
people of Louisiana, and by them incorporated in 
their constitution and in an ordinance, which they 
declared irrevocable without the consent of Congress. 
In 1812, they vvere " admitted into the Union, on an 
equal fooling with the original states, in all respects 
whatever, provided," says the act, "that all the con- 
ditions and terms contained in the third section of 
the act of February 20th, 1811, shall be considered, 
deemed, and taken fundamental conditions and terms, 
upon which the said state is incorporated in the 
Union." It is impossible to believe that the " equal 
footing" here spoken of, could be any other than an 
equality of federal rights. An equality of state rights 
Louisiana could not possess, consistently with this 
act ; for its conditions, which^are irrevocable without 
the consent of Congress, must for ever prevent her 
from legislating on various important subjects, over 
which the original states have complete jurisdiction. 
Some of these conditions are sufficiently remarkable, 
and, in my opinion, such as no ingenuity can derive 
from any express pov/ers given to Congress by the 
constitution in relation to these particular objects. 
Where, for instance, are the express clauses author- 
izing you to make it a condition of admitting a state, 
that" siie shall establish religious freedom ; that she 
^hall use the English language in all her official acts ; 
or that she shall not tax the lands of non residents 
higher than those ol residents ? I know of no such 
clauses ; none such have been pointed out. No, sir ; 
these conditions can be defended only on the ground 
which I have taken ; namely, that Congress may ad- 
mit new states upon such terms as the parties see fit 



19 

mutually to adopt, provided that they leave the states, 
so admitted, in possession of all federal rights per- 
taining to the old states, and do not acquire for them- 
selves any new power to be exerted over other mem- 
bers of the confederacy without their consent. 

I have already, Mr. Chairman, occupied so much 
of your time with this branch of the enquiry, that I 
will only add, with respect to the remaining states, 
that Indiana and IllinQJs were admitted on conditions 
similar to those of Ohio ; and that Mississippi and 
Alabama came in on the same terms, except with re- 
spect to slavery, which was unfortunately fixed on 
them, by the dead of cession from Georgia to the 
United States. 

Such, sir, is the historj- of ilie formation and ad- 
mission of all our new states from Kentueky to Ala- 
bama. To each of them, the first question put was, 
whether they chose at that time to become a state, on 
ilic terms then proposed ; which terms, if accepted, 
were to be irrevocable without the consent of both 
parlies. With respect to three of these slates, Ohio, 
Indiana, and Illinois, the very same restriction on 
slavery, proposed in this amendment, was made the 
condition of their being admitted. There is one 
condition (not to mention others) running through all 
the new states, which is too remarkable to be here 
omitted. It was made a condition with all of them, 
that they should stipulate never to tax the lands of 
non-residents higher than those of residents. Sir, 
the right possessed by governments to impose taxes, 
and to proportion those taxes, according to their own 
sense of justice or of policy, among the individuals 
upon whom they are to operate, is among the high- 
est and most undoubted rights of state sovereignty. 
All the original states possess the right (and some of 
them have exercised it) of taxing the lands of non- 
residents higher than those of residents. Yet, eight 
of the new states have expressly renounced this right 
for ever, as the condition of their being admitted into 
the Union. Nay, sir, the same condition is ta be 
found in the present bdl with respect to Missouri. All 
these states, then, have been admitted with rights in- 
ferior to those of the original thirteen. With these 



20 

undeniable laets before us, we shall be at no loss what 
to think of the position, assumed by gentlemen on the 
other side, and which, in fact, lies at the foundation 
of all their arguments, that new states, when admitted 
into the Union, become at once possessed of all the 
local or municipal rights of the original states, and 
are, by the act of admission, placed necessarily on an 
equality, in all respects, both as to state and federal 
rights, with the original members. Sir, such a doc- 
trine finds no support whatever in the past history of 
our government. It takes, too, for its basis, this 
strangest of all positions, that the act of admiuing a 
state absolves her from all former obligations, and 
even from the conditions on which alone she becomes 
a member of our confederacy. So true is even this 
last inference, that it has been actually adopted on 
this floor; and we have been repeatedly told that tliis 
restriction, if accepted by Missouri, will not bind her- 
and that, by altering her consiituiion, she can at any 
time evade its force ; in other words, that she may 
accept a grant upon conditions which she expressly 
stipulates to perform, and yet, at the same moment, 
may disregard or violate those conditions I If this 
be law or justice, i£ it be good faith, or sound reason- 
ing, I know not to what conduct, or to what fallacy, 
these terms do not equally apply. 

Having thus, Mr. Chairman, established, as I con- 
ceive, the constitutional power of Congress to impose 
this restriction, the only remaining enquiry is, as to 
the expediency of exerting that power on this occa- 
sion. If it were not known with what ingenuity men 
support opinions, however extravagant, which, from 
interest, from prejudice, or from other motives, they 
may have imbibed, it would seem utterly incredible 
to an indifferent spectator that the expediency of ex- 
tending slavery over half a continent should ever 
come seriously to be debated in an assembly of free- 
men. But such is the fact ; and the policy of this 
measure, as well as its constitutionality, is denied. 

And here, sir, in the very front ground of this en- 
quiry, as to the expediency of this restriction, 1 place 
at once the injustice of slavery ; and, in reply to all 
that can be said in favor of its extension, I find in un- 



answerable argument in that great maxim of universal 
morality, tliat tvhat is moraUii wvong can nfver be po- 
liticaUi/ right. Wc talk of "slavery, sir, as if it were 
an evil merely, and seem almost to forget that it is also 
a crime ; tliat it outrages every principle of justice 
and of humanity, and can rest for its defence on no 
grounds which do nut equally support the tyrant on 
Ills throne, and the despot in his most wanton abuse 
of power. For what can the tyrant do more than 
make slaves of men ? And ,vhat can the despot wish 
more abject than the submission of hereditary bonds- 
men ? When I am told then that it is expedient to 
extend slavery to Missouri, I answer, tliat slavery is in 
itself, by the laws of God and of nature, a moral of- 
fence ; an act of tyrafiny and of injustice, and there- 
fore that it clhnot be vvi3c or expedient ; because 
sound policy and true wisdom are never inconsistent 
with the just and equal rights of man. On this sub- 
ject, sir, let me not be misunderstood. Though sla- 
very is in itself unjust, I do not thence accuse all 
slave-holders of injusuce. I am willing to believe 
that the toleration of slavery in the southern stales, 
where it has already taken deep root, is not unjust 
with respect to them ; because it is not in their power 
at once to remove or avoid this great moral evil. I am. 
willing to believe, with the gentleman from Pennsylva- 
nia, (Mr. Hemphill,) that a present qualified right may, 
in this instance, have grown out of an original wrong. 
The stream, dark and turbid in its fountain, iray yet 
run clear as it wanders down the valley. Cut what is 
it, sir, that can thus purify even slavery from its ori- 
ginal isjustice ? I answer, the necessity of the case. 
It is not, however, interest, convenience, ease, or com- 
fort, under the name of necessity ; but a real, dirg, 
uncontrolable, and most fatal necessity, which can 
alone render it just for one man to deprive another, by 
the strong arm of power, of the unalienable 
right of freedom. I am willing to believe thai 
this necessity exists in the present slave-holding 
states : at any rate, I have no inclination, as I have no 
right, to enquire whether it docs or not. But I cannot 
believe, because it is not even pretended, that this ne- 
cessity exists in Missouri, Slavery has hardly yet tar 



22 

ken root in that fruitful soil ; and therefore what is to 
be tolerated in the old states, only beca>ise it cannot] 
there be avoided, is unnecessary, and of course crim- 
inal, in Missouri ; criminal alike in those who estab- 
lish it, and in those who, having the power to prevent, 
yet suffer it to be established there. I should enlarge, 
air, upon this topic ; but 1 perceive that it is one which 
excites no very pleasant feelings in our southern breth- 
ren; and I am driven from it by the stern tones and the 
repulsive gesture with which the honorable Speaker: 
(Mr. Clay) has warned us not to obtrude upon ftinn 
with our New England notions. Sir, what are these 
notions? Liberty, equality, the rights of man. These 
are the notions which, if we cherish, we must eherish 
in secret — -which, if we entertain, we^ust entertain 
by ourselves. These are the notions which we musti 
cast aside when we leave our own happy homes, and 
which, if by chance they find their way into this hall, 
are to be repelled vcith the charge of folly, of fanati- 
cism, of a negro-phobia. Sir, if there be any madness 
in this case, it is the madness of those who hug slave- 
ry to their bosoms ; if there beany infatuation, it is the 
infatuation of those who are willing to dissolve the 
Union, rather than not extend this pestiferous insti- 
tution beyond the Mississippi. But I forbear to press 
further this branch of the enquiry, and withdraw from 
it with repeating my remark, that what is unjust must 
for that reason alone, if for no other, be inexpedient. 

But the injustice of slavery is not the only teason 
against its further extension. It is as prejudicial to the 
country, as it is unjust towards its victuns. There is 
no branch of useful labor which is not better perform- 
ed, and at less expence, by freemen than by slaves. 
Agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, are the 
three great sources of national wealth. With respect 
to manufactures, they can hardly be said to exist in 
countries where slavery prevails to any great extent. 
The great manufacturing establishments of this coun- 
try are almost exclusively confined to the non-slave- 
holding states. Of the injurious effects of slavery on 
commerce, not a word need be said. Who ever heard 
of a mercantile people, engaging in the pursuits of 
commerce, with the labor of servile hands ? We a' - 



23 

cordingly find that the commerce and navigation of 
the United States belong principally to the non-sliive- 
holding; states; and that the hardy seamen who have 
borne your naval thunders in triumph over every sea, 
and planted the stars of your union in a sphere of 
glory, whence no earthly power can ever pluck them 
down, were net only freemen themselves, but born 
and nurtured in a land where slavery is unknown. 

It is indeed conceded on all hands that the slave- 
holding states are not extensively engaged in com- 
merce or manufactures ; but it is said they are an a- 
gricultural people, and that to this their whole atten- 
tion is directed. But, sir, with what success ? The 
labor of slaves, though it costs nothing beyond their 
subsistence, is in effect the dearest and least profitable 
of all kinds oflabor. Feeling no ottier motive than 
the fear of punishment, they labor slowly, and with re- 
luctance ; and seek only how they may escape with 
the least possible exertion from their daily, and to 
them unprofitable tasks. That strongest of all prin- 
ciples implanted in the breast of man, the desire and 
the hope of improving his condition, lightens care, and 
renders toil sweet to him who is cheered with the 
constant reflection that he labors for himself, and not 
for a master. Give such a man the fee-simple of a 
barren rock, and he will cover it with verdure ; plant 
him in a desert, and fertility will spring around him. 
Convenience and content are the companions of his 
toil, and wealth follows in the train of industrious free- 
dom. On the contrary, the slave and his task-mas- 
ter, placed in a land flowing with milk and honey, 
would convert even the garden of Eden into a desert 
and a waste. Whether this be truth or fiction, I ap- 
peal to those to say who have surveyed and compared 
the varying aspectsofour common country,from Maine 
IXi Georgia, in reference to this particular subject? It 
would be easy for me to produce the highest authori- 
ties in support of my opinion, from among the first 
men in the slave-holding states. The sentiments of 
Mr. Jefferson are well known, and have been already 
quoted in this debate. Those whicli I am about to 
read to the committee, are Irom another distinguished 
ilave-holder, who statesj in language stronger than I 



sliould have dared to use, fads whicli no one has lia- 
iiied, and which I may therefore be pardoned for re- 
peating after him. " No person" says General Har- 
per, " who has seen the slave-holding states, and those 
where slavery does not exist, and has compared evei 
so slightly their condition and situation, can have fail- 
ed to be struck with the vast difference in favor of the 
latter." " In population ; in the general diffusion ol 
wealth and comfort ; in public and private inrjprove- 
ments ; in the education, manners, and mode of life, 
of the middle and laboring classes ; in the face of thei 
country ; in roads, bridges, and inns ; in schools and 
churches ; in the general advancement of improve- 
ment and prosperity, there is no comparison. Thei 
change ib seen the instant you cross theiine which se- 
parates the country where'tlicrc arc slaves from that 
where there are none. Whence does this arise ? I 
answer, from this — that in one division of the country 
the land is cultivated by freemen, for their own bene- 
fit ; and in the other almost entirely by slaves, for the 
benefit of their masters." Sir, this is the testimony 
of a slave-holder, who states, not opinions which hei 
may entertain, but/«cits which have forced themselves 
upon his observation ; facts which you and I, and 
every member of this house, have equally witnessed. 
If then such are the acknowledged effects of slavery 
wherever it exists, can it be expedient to extend these 
evils to the people of Missouri ? No, sir: with the 
economy, the industry, the equal distribution of pro- 
perty, which prevails in the free states, the South 
would present an aspect altogether different, and 
%vould become in every respect more prosperous, and 
more powerful, than it can ever hope to be, while its 
generous soil yields its produce only to the reluctant 
and unhallowed labor of servile hands. 

If, from the cultivation of the soil, we turn our at- 
tention to its means of defence, we shall find slavery 
equally unfavorable to the military strength, as to the 
wealth and improvement of the country. The space 
which should be occupied by freemen, is filled with 
slaves, and from them your armies draw no recruits. 
But this is not all : these slaves are an oppressed 
race, ever ready to break out .in open rebellio!- 



25 

against their masters, and most ready, and most like- 
ly to do so, when a foreign enemy presses hardest 
upon the country — so thiit when oar whole military 
strength is required for defence against a foreign in- 
' vader, no inconsiderable portion of your most effec- 
tive force must be employed against this domestic 
foe, to awe into subjection the skives within your bor- 
ders. This source of weakness must increase as slavery 
extcntls.and become more dangerous in every succeed- 
ing war. It is a fact, well cstablished,thatthe greater part 
of our regular troops, during the revolution, were 
drawn from the non-ilavc-holding states. If any fur- 
ther proof were required of this, we need only refer 
to the statement of the number of revolutionary pen- 
sioners, laid this morning upon our tables. They 
amount to something moif. than aixteen thousand ; 
and of tliese, nearly thirteen thousand are from states 
where slavery is not established. If they are to be 
taken as any criterion of the whole number in service 
fi'om different parts of the countiy, the free states 
must have furnished by far the greatest number of 
regular troops during that eventful period. I have 
been told by the yeneralile gentleman from Pennsyl- 
vania (Mr. Forrest) who was himself an actor in the 
scene, that at the seige of York, in the heart of Vir- 
ginia, there were not four hundred Virginia troops, 
exclusive of militia, present at the surrender of Corn- 
wallis. Sir, the history of the late war biings us to 
the same conclusion. With more than one half the 
people of New England opposed to that war, we, sir, 
the Republicans of the north — furnished more re- 
cruits to your regular army than any other portion of 
^ the country of equal extent. For the truth of this 
statement! refer you to the i-cturnsin the War Office. 
I shall ever be the first to acknowledge that the sol- 
diers of the south and the west are as brave, as gcn- 
irous, and as patriotic, as those of any other portion 
ol the Union. But tlie experience of all our wars 
provcj, that, though capable of great exertions as 
volunteers and militia men, when employed for a 
.'iort '.ime, on a particular service, the inhttbitan's 



26 

of the slave-holding states, do not furnish the country, 
either in war or in peace, with many regular soldiers. 
I am aware, sir, that the topics to which I have 
here alluded are of a delicate nature ; and I should 
not have adverted to this view ol the subject, conclu- 
sive as it is against the extension of slavery, but to 
repel an assertion, often made in this debate, that 
whatever may be the evils of slavery, they are confin- 
ed exclusively to the slave-holding states, and are 
therefore no concern of ours. Sir, it is a concern of 
ours. Is it nothing to us, that, in more than half the 
Union, a state of things exists unfavorable to com- 
merce, to manufactures, to agricultural improve- 
ments, and which abstracts materially from the mili- 
tary strength and defence of our common country ? 
And is it nothing to iis, whothor our new confeder- 
ates bring freedom or slavery, strength or weakness, 
with them into our Union ? This then is the inter- 
est, deep and lasting, which we have in the present 
question ; and this the motive, just and honorable, 
which we feel, in urging with ardour the adoption of 
a measure calculated, as we believe, to promote all 
the great objects for \Yhich the government itself 
was at first established. 

A gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has 
lold us that all the misfortunes of his life (they have, 
he says, been neither few nor inconsiderable) are light 
in the balance, when compared with the single mis- 
fortune of having been born the master of slaves. 
Sir, of the truth of this remark, I have not the slight- 
est doubt. It is one of the peculiar evils of this con- 
nexion that it is alike injurious to the master and to 
the slave — that the one can no more avoid, than the 
other dares avow, or avenge, the mutual misfortune 
and injustice of their several lots. Knowing 
this, and feeling daily the misery and the dangers of 
slavery, it is surely something more than strange— it 
is all but incredible — that the slave-holding states 
should yet wisii to entail on the country west of the 
Mississippi this tremendous calamity. Such was 
not formerly the state of public feeling on this sub. 



i.7 

jccl ; on Uic coniiaiy, ihc desire to contract the lim- 
its within which slavery might exist, was the predo- 
minant sentiment with the fathers of the revolution, 
whether from the north or from the south. The ordi- 
nance of irs/reccivcd the support of the southern states; 
and the restriction on slavery, contained in its sixth 
article, was introduced on the motion of Virginia. 
We have now acquired another territory, even more 
extensive than the northwest. We wish to pursue 
toward it the same policy, and impose upon it the 
same restriction. But wc find no longer a like sup- 
port from the slave-holding states. The JciTersons 
of the present ciay, if any such there be, are no lon- 
ger heard to describe slavery as a crime ; there is no 
longer a Patrick Henry in the south to denounce it as 
inconsistent with rhiistUnity , no Tucker to refute 
with irrefragable arguments the miserable sophistry 
of its advocates— and as for the Grayson of our times, it 
is to my friend from New York (Mr. Taylor), the mov- 
er of this amendment, and not to any son of the south, 
that this honorable cognomen must now be applied. 
All wc ask of the south is that they would do for Mis- 
souri what they have already done for Ohio, Indiana, 
and Illinois. We say to them, if you cannot remove 
slavery from among yourselves, do not extend it to 
others— let it suffice for your justification, that you 
lament its existence, that you load with execrations 
the memory of those by whom it was fixed upon 
you; but do not subject yourselves to the same censure 
from the people of Missouri in every succeeding age. 
Your condemnation will indeed be greater that 
that of your fathers. To them the possession of 
slaves might perhaps have appeared an advantage: 
but with you, who have tried it, there can be no such 
delusion. 

And who, sir, is to suffer by this measure ? Not 
the free states It is a point conceded, that they will 
gain by this restriction. Will the people of Missouri, 
then, be injured by it ? The Speaker (Mr. Clay) has 
told us that, if asked his opinion by the people of 
Missouri, he would advise them not to establish sl»- 
verv amonsc them. The same has been said by others 



opposed to this restriction. The question of expedi- 
ency, then, is abandoned, as to the free states, and as 
to the people of Missouri. They will both gain by 
this restriction. But it is said that the old slave-hold- 
ing states will be injured by it ; and that the country 
west of the Mississippi is necessary as an outlet for 
their redundant slave population. Slavery, it is said, 
becomes less dangerous by being more widely dif- 
fused. It is, we are told, a poison which, though 
deadly in itself, may be weakened, and diluted, and 
rendered less fatal, Ijy dividing it amongst a number, 
and giving to each a smaller portion. If this were, 
indeed, the case, it would even then be ungenerous 
and unjust in us to seek relief in our sufferings at the 
expense of others, or to extend to our brethren (though 
they may be willing to shore with us) the bitter ingre- 
dients of our own poisowed chalice. But, sir, this me- 
taphor is inapplicable to the present case; and, if we 
must indulge in comparisons, I would rather liken 
slavery to some noxious plant — to some poison tree — 
the Bohan-Upas, if you will. And what are we now 
called upon to do ? To lay the axe to the root of this 
deadly tree ? No, sir, but to lop its excrescences 
merely, to prune its too exuberant growth, and to 
transfer, to the fertile regions of the west, new scions 
irom the parent stock ; there to flourish and increase 
in rank luxuriance, till their fatal branches shall over- 
shadow and darken all the land. Never was hope 
more fallacious than that of lessening permanently 
the evils of slavery in the old states, by extending 
them to the new. The evil is, that we have already a 
million and a half of slaves; and the remedy proposed 
is, to double their number. Our present misfortune 
is, that we have eleven slave-holding states; and we 
hope to alleviate this misfortune by creating as many 
more! It is, indeed, the hope of desperation; it is 
drinking for the dropsy; it is the relief, short and 
fatal, which the involved debtor finds in new loans, 
upon usurious interest, which remove misfortunes for 
a lime, that they may return again, as they are sure 
to do, with accumulated force, upon their unhappy 
victim. 



s:9 

But, we arc told, if this restriction is imposed, it 
will not lessen the number of slaves in the United 
States, and that this is not, therefore, a question res- 
pecting the increase or diminution of slavery. Sir, I 
affirn\ that this is the precise question now to be de- 
cided. A new and extensive country is about to be 
settled ; and it is for us to say whether it shall be in- 
habited by freemen or by slaves. In a few genera- 
tions, at the furthest, it must be filled with the one or 
the other ; and will it be pretended that, with twenty 
slave-holding states, we shall then have no more slaves 
in them all, than we should have in ten ? Suppose 
there were but one, would there be as many slaves in 
Maryland, for instance, as in all the south and west ? 
It cannot be believed. Thia is men a question of the 
increase of slavery. 

All history proves, that emigration does not, for 
any considerable time, diminiiih the number of inha- 
bitants in the country which they leave. The stream 
flows, but is not exhausted; it overflows, but its banks 
are still full, and not the less so for what they have 
discharged. For tv/o hundred years the tide of emi- 
gration has been constantly setting, with a steady cur- 
rent, from the old to the new world ; yet no one be- 
lieves that Europe is less populous now than she 
would ha\ e been if America had never been disco- 
vered. On the contrary, her inhabitants never doub- 
led their numbers, within such short terms, as since the 
discovery of this country. In Spain, it has been often 
remarked, that the provinces v/hich sent forth the 
most emigrants to America, were, at the same time, 
the best peopled. The same is true of Ireland: the 
oppression of her rulers has driven her sons to seek 
an asylum in every quarter of the globe ; yet no part 
of the Brilish dominions in Europe has increased so 
fast in inhabitants, fur the last hundred years, as Ire- 
land. We see the same principle of population 
exemplified among ourselves. From New England 
have proceeded those hardy adventurers who have 
filled all the north western states ; who have settled a 
large portion of New York ; and who are, in short, to 



so 

be found in every state, and, I may almost say, in eve- 
ry county, in the Union. Yet New England, though 
constantly pouring forth such swarms of emigrants, 
is at the same time the most populous and best settled 
part of our country. In short, sir, a moderate and 
steady emigration from old to new countries, is the 
surest possible method of increasing the number of 
inhabitants in the old and new combined, if not, as I 
believe, in each by itself. Take the case of slaves in 
our own country. The states of Georgia, Kentucky, 
Tennessee, Mississippi, and Ala'^ama, have been sup- 
plied with slaves principally from Maryland, Virgi- 
nia, and the two Carolinas. Yet the slaves have, in 
the mean time, increased in these latter stales faster 
than the whites, is nut tWio a most instructive and 
alarming fact; and must we not infer that their fur- 
ther extension will be attended with a still more rapid 
increase ? 

Look, sir, at the country from whence, for two 
hundred years, these unhappy victims have been 
wafted to your shores, till the new world, the conti- 
nent and the isles, has become almost a second Africa, 
covered & cursed with the same sable race. Yet, never, 
since the commencement of the slave trade, has Af- 
rica been more populous thansheisatthepresentday. 
There, as here,slaves have been constantly in demand; 
there, as here, they have been a profitable article in 
market ; there to be produced, here to be employed. 
Sir, there is something dreadful in the idea of mak- 
ing human flesh the object of human traffic; but when 
it is so considered, the ordinary rules of trade apply 
equally to this, as to other branches of commerce; 
and we all know that supply and demand, in the mer- 
cantile world, must always, for any given length of 
time, correspond very nearly with each other. If, 
then, there is a demand for slaves in the United 
States, that demand will be supplied. And will slave- 
ry be less an evil, or slaves be more easily managed, 
when you have five millions, than now that you have 
only one or two? when you have twenty, than now that 
you have eleven slave-holding states I No, sir; time, 



31 

instead of removing, constantly aggravates the evlis 
of slavery wherever it exists. As well might you 
hope to save your own house in flames, by setting 
fire to your neighbor's ; to remove disease already 
contracted, by infecting others with your disorder; in 
a word, to avoid any other misfortune, by involving 
all your friends in the same calamity, as hope to es- 
cape the plague of slavery by extending it to the states 
west of the Mississippi. This, then, is my conclu- 
sion: the slave-holding states will eventually suffer 
nothing by this restriction : the people of Missouri 
will gain every thing by it ; and the free states, it is 
universally acknowledged, are most deeply interest- 
ed in its success. 

Let us examine thio measure, Mr. Chairman, in ano- 
ther point of view. We are all united in our detestation 
of tlie slave trade. Gentlemen Irom the south and the 
south-west seem, indeed, emulous of each others' elo- 
quence, in denouncing this disgraceful traffic. But 
what is it, sir, that constitutes the guilt and the cruelty 
of the slave trade ? I answer, it is the breach of eve- 
ry tender and every domestic tie — the separation of 
parents from their children, of husbands from their 
wives, and of friends and connections from those with 
whom, from infancy, they have been united ; it is this: 
it is carrying them strangers to a strange land — which 
constitutes the bitter pill in the cup of slavery. And 
yet all this, and worse, occurs in the domestic slave 
trade, carried on, for many years past, to a very great 
extent, between Delaware, Maryland, and Virginig, 
on the one hand, and the slave-holding states further 
south and west, on tlie other. It may well be doubt- 
ed whether the African, poor, and ignorant, and op- 
pressed in his native country, suffers more by becom- 
ing a slave in Maryland and Virginia, than the native 
black, not always a slave, does, by being transported 
from this temperate climate, and the mild usage he 
may here receive, to toil and perish in the rice fields 
of Georgia, in the cypress swamps of Louisiana, or in 
turning up new grounds, and piercing the deep fo- 
xests, the interminable wilderness of Mississippi and 



32 

Alabama, or ihe yet more remote prairies of the Mii 
iouri and the Kansas. We have already established a 
slave trade at home, among ourselves, carried on 
even here, under the eye of power, in this seat and 
centre of federal authority, and within sight of this 
legislative hall ; and it is, Mr. Chairman, among the 
questions involved in this restriction, whether this 
domestic slave trade shall be increased to a ten- 
fold extent, by creating an insatiable demand for 
slaves beyond the Mississippi ; or whether, by con- 
fining slavery within its present limits, this disgrace- 
ful traffic, ceasing to be profitable, shall likewise 
cease to exist? 

Nor is this measure less important in reference to 
ihe foreign slave trade, it isoortain that many slaves 
are annually smuggled into the United States, in di- 
rect violation of our laws. We have, indeed, been 
told that their number is small ; and the Speaker 
(Mr. Clay) has exhibited to us a statement of some 
three or four hundred slaves, reported to the gov- 
ernment as having been illicitly introduced. But, does 
he suppose that this is all ? or would he have us infer 
from this statement, that the slave-smugglers regu- 
larly inform the government of their criminal pro- 
ceedings ? No, sir ; of the unhappy beinjis, thus, 
in violation of all laws, transported to our shores, and 
thrown by force into the mass of our black popula- 
tion, scarcely one in a hundred is ever detected by 
the officers of the general government, in a partoi the 
country, where, if we are to believe the statement of 
Governor Rabun, " an officer who would perform 
his duty, by attempting to enforce the law, (against 
the slave trade) is, by many, considered as an officious 
meddler, and treated with derision and contenipt ;" 
treated with derision and contempt, sir, for endea- 
voring to restrain the slave trade ! And this is the 
testimony of the Gov ernor of Georgia, with respect to 
the people of his own stale. I have been told by a 
gentleiTian who has attended particulurly to this sub- 
ject, that ten thousand slaves were in ime year smug- 
gled into the United Slates ; and that even for the 



33 

last year, we must count the number, not by )iu;i 
dreds, but by thousands. If this be true, is even the 
foreign slave trade abolished amongst us ? Our laws 
declare that it is ; but our conduct is in opposition 
to those laws. We prohibit the slave trade, and yet, 
daily create new demands for slaves ; thus, holdins^ 
out the strongest inducements to violate ouc own 
iaws. All the armies of Napoleon could not prevent 
the introduction and use of British goods on the con- 
tinent of Europe : And why not. sir ? Because those 
goods were cheap at Dover, and dear at Calais. No 
more can your laws and your fleets prevent the in- 
troduction of slaves into the United States, while 
those slaves are cheap in Cuba, and dear at New-Or- 
leans. If you would destroy the slave trade, begin 
with shutting up thp ilavo markets which you have 
opened beyond the Mississippi If you will not do 
this, repeal your laws against the slave trade altoge- 
ther; and do not compel the dealer in human flesh to 
add to the many crimes which he must daily commit, 
the needless one of violating your laws, since you 
mean not that those laws shall be enforced. Sir, 
there is no one who hears me that would not revolt at 
such a course ; and yet this also is one of the ques- 
tions we have to decide, whether we shall discounte- 
nance the slave trade, or do all in our power, short ot 
repealing our laws against it, to extend its range by 
creating a new demand for slaves in the west. 

But, say gentlemen on tl^e other side, Missouri 
will not submit to your restriction. Are you states- 
men, says the Speaker, and have you not looked for- 
ward to consequences ? Suppose Missouri resists, 
what are to be your ulterior measures ? Sir, this ob- 
jection, like many others urged in tliis debate, is, in 
my opinion, founded upon a misapprehension of the 
character and the consequences of this measure. The 
law we are about to pass, is not an ordinary act of le- 
gislation. It is not an authority vested in the Execu- 
tive, to be enforced by him, like other laws, with the 
arm of the civil, and, if necessary, of the military pow- 
T. The people of Missouri, Vfhen met m conven- 



S4 

'.ion, may determine that it is inexpedient lor them, a; 
this time, and upon these terms, to become a state ; 
and if they do so determine, there is,' as I have alrea- 
dy shewn, an end of our present act. This single 
fact, which no one will deny, appears to me to furnish 
a conclusive answer to all that has been said on this 
part of the subject. It proves at once the true 
nature of tliis transaction, which is, in effect, nothing 
more than a proposition to treat with Missouri, as to 
her admission into the Union. This act contains our 
firsi proposals : if they are rejected by Missouri (and 
she has a perfect right to reject any or all of them) 
we may then propose any other terms, more or less 
favorable to her, provided they are not inconsistent 
with the constitutional limitations which I have alrea- 
dy noticed. 

But we arc told Missouri will form a constitution 
for herself, and demand admission, and that we dare 
not refuse her. It is a sufficient answer to this threat 
of consequences, to say that Missouri has no right to 
do so ; that she is a territory, and can never become a 
state without our consent. But she will throw off her 
allegiance, and erect an independent government of 
her own. And has it come to this ? and are we in 
such want of new confederates, that we must abandon 
our just rights for fear of giving <jffence to our fo- 
reign territories ? Are the good old thirteen, who in 
their infancy would brook no insult, even from the pa- 
rent state, already reduced so low as to be threatened 
with disunion by a people of whose existence they are 
hardly yet informed ? Is this the orphan of the West; 
described by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr, 
Holmes,) as coming by the way of the wilderness, 
with her locks wet with the dews of night, asking 
shelter and seeking protection beneath the arm of our 
power ? or is it rather an armed warrior, knocking, 
sword in hand, at our gate, and threatening fiercely to 
demolish the portal if not instantly thrown open, that 
he may enter ? We have been told by the Speaker 
that the people of Missouri are ready to shoulder 
theu' muskets, to march en masse, and force theii 



35 

way- into this hail. Sir, if this be indeed so, it is time 
to barricade the doors. If it be an enemy that is ad- 
vancing, let us bar our gates, and prepare for our de- 
fence ; and for doing this loo tlieie is more and belter 
reason, if within Uie fortress itself there be those who 
»vould throw down the barriers, and welcome in the 
invader. 

But not only will Missouri revolt from ourauthori. 
ty : the slave-holding states will join with her, and, if 
this restriction passes, the Union will be dissolved. 
Such, sir, is the language which I have heard, with in- 
finite regret, upon this floor, not from two or three 
members merely, but from almost all those who have 
spoken against this amendment. In my mind, Mr. 
chairman, there would be much more of tprror in this 
threat, (or, if a miWer term be pielerrcd,) in this pre- 
diction of disunion, if it were now for the first time 
employed. But it has been often used before. The 
first threats of disunion which I now remember in our 
history, came from Kentucky, where, some thirty 
years ago, certain persons threatened to join the Span- 
iards of Louisiana if their wishes were not granted. It 
is not now thought, I believe, that there was mucJi 
real danger to the Union in that case. In 1 798-9, the 
Union was again said to be in (■iangcr. The sound 
tlien came from Virginia, and was loudly echoed back 
by her daughter of the West. Yet no division follow- 
ed. I, for one, applaud, sir, the constitutional opposi- 
tion which Virginia then made to certain measures of 
the general government; but I, at ihe same time, as 
decidedly condemn the threats of disuni.>n, and those 
ulterior designs of armed resistance, which some ar- 
dent minds were supposed then to entertain. In 1814 
-15, disunion was again threatened ; and I am sorry 
to say that the threat then c. me from the North. But, 
mark the result. When the people of New England 
began to suspect that certain leading men amoiig them 
were in favor of a dissolution of the Union, they iiban- 
doned those leaders The great body even of the 
Federalists said, we dis-pprove of the war indeed, but 
you mistake us altogether if you think us unfriendly 



to the Union, or that we wish to destroy the consiim- 
tion. The idea of a division of tlie states met no- 
where with more pointed disapprobation than in New 
England ; and I hazard nothing in saying that, if arm- 
ed resistance to the laws had, even in the darkest pe- 
riod of the late war, been attempted amongst us, wc, 
sir, the republicans of the north, without aid from our 
southern brethren, should, at once, have put down 
insurrection, and, by our own strength alone, driven 
treason and rebellion out of the land. But the ene- 
mies of the government did not dare to go the length 
of open resistance. 

In the same manner, I have no doubt that a con- 
vention in the South, having for its object the txtcn- 
sion of slavery to Missouri, would be equally unsuc- 
cessful as the convention at the North. Our mal- 
contents, whatever might have been their real ob- 
jects, had some popular topics to urge — they were the 
friends of commerce and of peace; objects dear to 
every wise and enlightened mind. But what would 
the founders of the southern and western empire !ia\e 
to urge in their delence? Why, sir, the author of their 
new declaration of independence would have to say, 
not as our fathers said against the king of England, 
that the slave trade had ijeen continued contrary to 
their wishes, but tlrat Congress had endeavored to re- 
strain slavery within its ancient limits; that it had 
proposed its inhibition to Missouri, and, therefore, 
that they, the south and the west, no longer owed al- 
legiance to the Union. Believe me, sir, this will not 
be their course; I think too well of them to believe 
that, in such a cause, they would resort to arms 
against their brethren. If, unhappily, a dissolution 
of the Union should ever take place, it will not be for 
the sake of extending slavery beyond the Mississippi. 
If the southern and western states should ever aban- 
don the stars and the stiipcs of our national Union, it 
will not be to unfurl for themselves a standard, bear- 
ing on its field a slave manacled. No, sir, this is not 
a cause in which to enlist the feelings of a generous 
and enlightened people, such as I cs'.cem them to be, 



3T 

They may indeed think the course we are pursuing 
impolitic and unwise, but they are not prepared, with 
armed force, to resist the measures of Congress, and, 
least of all, when those measures have foriheit object 
the diminution of slavery, the extension of freedom, 
and the secure enjoyment of the equal rights of man. 
When, therefore, disunion is predicted as the con- 
sequence of our measures, I listen to it with regret 
indeed, but also with incredulity; and, therefore, 
without dismay. Sir, our confederacy is not so easily 
destroyed; it is cemented by the mutual interests of 
all its members; and the understandings, the affec- 
tions, and the hearts, of the people, are knit together 
in one common bond of indissoluble union. 

Much has been said, Mr. Chairman, in fhis debate, 
respecting the motivi/a nf «hc ftiends of this restric- 
tion ; and an appeal has been made to vulgar preju- 
dices, by calhng it a Federal measure ; as if its merits 
could depend upon its authors. Yet I am willing to 
try it even by this test, since it is well known that it 
originated with Republicans ; that it is supported by 
the Republicans throughout the free states; and that 
the Federalists of the south are its warm opponents. 
The question then is not between Federalists and Re- 
publicans, but between slave-holdsrs and those who 
hold no slaves. It is a knowledge of this faet, which 
has induced the free states, usually so much divided 
among themselves, to advance on this occasion with 
so much ardor and unanimity to the attainment of 
their object. And well might they, in such a cause, 
throw aside their local jealousies, their petty feuds, 
•nd their temporary strifes, when the best hopes of 
man are all involved in the issue, when the lasting- 
prosperity of the Union is at stake, and their own pe- 
culiar interests all cast upon the die. With us, disun- 
ion would be suicide ; for we stand here merely on 
the defensive ; and most untruly and unjustly is it 
said that we are seeking to injure or degrade the 
southern states, while we wish only to defend our- 
selves. Whether with or without slaves, Missouri 
will still be a southern state^aouthern in her posi- 
4 



98 

tion, in her character, in her interests, and in her po- 
litical connections. To all this, we have nothing to 
object. We only wish that she should not be a slave- 
holding state. It is not southern influence or south- 
ern representation to which we are unfriendly — but 
slave influence and slave representation which we wish 
to confine within the limits of the present states ; and, 
in so doing, we only fulfil the wishes and expectations 
of the people, when the constitution itself was first 
adopted. 

If we look back to the debates of the state conven- 
tions, we shall find that the Gonslituiion was univer- 
sally considered as leading to the gradual abolition of 
slavery, even in the old states, and as furnishing no 
excuse for its extension to the new. Of this fact, it 
would be easy lu prnrluce the fullest proof. In the 
Massachusetts convention, Judge Uawes said, in de- 
fending the constitution even for tolerating slavery, 
«' the convention did all they could in this case ; and 
we may say that, though slavery is not smitten by an 
apoplexy, yet it has received a deadly wound, and 
will die of a consumption." What, sir, would have 
been the astonishment of men who adopted the con- 
stitution under this belief, if they had been told that, 
within the first generation, slavery would extend over 
twice its ancient limits, and that, instead of being 
smitten by an apoplexy, or dying of a consumption, 
it was to receive fresh strength under the new go- 
vernment, and have infused into it, by this very con- 
stitution, new life and vigor ? « The niigration and 
importation," said Gen. Heath, in the same assem- 
bly, "is confined to tlie states now existing only ; new 
states cannot claim it. But whether those in slavery, 
in the southern states, will be emancipated after 1808, 
I do not pretend to determine. I rather doubt it." 
An opinion, it seems, prevailed, that Congress might 
abolish slavery, even there, after 1808 : this he rather 
doubted, but said that slavery could not be extended 
to the new states. No one can read these, debates 
•without perceiving that the constitution would never 
feave been adopted in Massachusetts, had it not been 



39 

considered as unfavorable to slavery, even within its 
ancient limits. 1 The same may be said of all the New 
England States. The like sentiments were also ex- 
pressed in the New York convention ; and were urged 
with equal confidence in Pennsylvania. " The new 
states," said Judge Wilson, who was himself one of 
the framers of the constitution, " will be under the 
control of Congress in this particular, and slaves will 
never be introduced among them." " Yet a few 
years," he adds, " and Congress will have the power 
t-o exterminate slavery from within our borders." 
We find the same opinions expressed even in the 
.slave-holding states : " There is no clause," said 
George Mason, in the Virginia convention, " that 
will prevent the northern and eastern states from 
meddling with our whole property of this kind." Pa- 
trick Henry went even further — " congress," said he, 
"may liberate every one of your slaves, if they please. 
They have the power, in clear, unecjuivocal terms, 
and will clearly and certainly exercise it." 

It is surely unnecessary to quote further authorities. 
I have not produced these, as containing my own 
views of the constitution ; for, in some respects, they 
are certainly incorrect; but merely to show, what the 
v/hole history of the times proves, that the framers of 
the constitution, and those by whom it was adopted, 
both its friends and its enemies, in every part of the 
country, considered it as leading gradually to the 
abolition of slavery in the old states, and as guarding 
effectually against its introduction into the new states. 
In proposing the present measure, then, we are only 
doing what was expected from us by the founders of 
our republic ; and it is therefore not on lis, but on 
our opponents, that the imputation rests, of intro- 
ducing new and alarming doctrines, unknown to our 
fathers, and unsanctioned by the constitution. The 
free states, sir, would never have come into this 
Union, had they supposed it possible that within the 
iirst generation they would become a minority in the 
government. There wants but one, on the other side, 
to make them so at present in the Senate ; and, at this 



40 

moment, the representation of slaves alone, on this 
floor, exclusive of the whites, exceeds in number, 
and, on this very question, out votes all the represen- 
tatives from six out of eleven of thenon-slavc-holding 
states. 

Feeling the weight of this slave representation, and 
knowing with what fatal activity it increases, is it 
strange that the free states, believing they possess au- 
thority under the constitution, should wish to prevent 
its existence in states hereafter to be admitted, as they 
have already prevented it in Ohio, Indiana, and Illi- 
nois ? No, sir, in such a cause, it would be strange 
indeed if the best hearts and the best minds of our 
country, its wisdom and its virtue, were not all en- 
gaged on this occasion. Nor, in truth, have the free 
states been wanting to themselves on this great day of 
their trial ; auj if we. their representatives on this 
floor, have but firmness to perlorm, painful as it may 
be, the duties of our station, all will be well with them 
-—all will yet be well, if ire are but true to our con- 
stituents, and true to ourselves. And what, let me 
ask, have we seen or heard, on this occasion, that we, 
above all others, should shrink from this duty, or 
hesitate and falter in its performance ? Is it the con- 
duct of the Senate in connecting Maine with Mis- 
souri ; or the declaration that, in future, no free state 
•hall be admitted till a slave-holding stale can be 
found to form a balance to it in the Senate ? Is it 
the doctrine, now advanced, that, instead of three- 
fifths, all the slaves ought to be represented ? Or is 
it the assertion, that slavery is the natural state of man, 
and that slaves are happier than their masters ; or, at 
any rate, that their condition is better than that of sol- 
diers and seamen; and that slavery is not only esta- 
blished in practice among all nations, but is agreea- 
ble to the laws of nature, and expressly sanctioned by 
our religion ? Are these the arguments by which we 
are to be persuaded to forego our just rights on this 
occasion ? Sir, on my mind they produce an effect 
directly the reverse of that intended by their authors. 
When I hear slavery in the southern states lamented 



41 

as an evil, 'which they cannot immediately remove, I 
acquiesce in the justice of this defence. But when 
gentlemen go further, and not merely excuse slavery, 
!)ut pronounce its eulogium ; when they tell us 
that, however bad it may be for the slave, it is no in- 
jury to the master; that he gains by it, that his case 
and convenience are promoted, and, therefore, that it 
ought not to be touched, I tremble for the stability of 
our republican institutions. For on what does this 
defence of slavery in the abstract rest, but on this— 
that by the decrees of Providence, one man is born 
to labor, and another to enjoy the Iruiis of that labor ; 
that one is born with aright to govern, and another 
bound to obey ; the one a master, the other a slave ? 
And what is this, but the very essence of kingly go- 
vernment — the doctrine of tyrants, in every age— 
" The enormous faith of millions made tor one ?" 

These, th<;n, are the motives of our conduct — we 
find slavery unjust in itself: adverse to all the great 
branches ofnational industry : a source of danger in 
times of war: repugnant to the first principles of our re- 
publican government: and in all these ways, extend- 
ing its injurious effects to the states where its existence 
is not even tolerated. We believe that we possess, un- 
der the constitution, the power necessary to arrest the 
further pregress of this great and acknowledged evil ; 
and the measure now proposed is the joint result of 
all these motives, acting upon this belief, and guided 
by our most mature judgments and our best reflec- 
tions. As such, we present it to the people of Mis- 
souri, in the firm persuasion that we shall be found, 
in the end, to have consulted their wishes not less than 
their interests by this measure For what, sir, is 
Missouri ? Not the comparatively few inhabitants 
who now possess the country; but a state, large and 
powerful, capable of containing, and destined, I trust, 
to contain half a million of virtuous and intelligent 
freemen. It is to their wishes and their interests 
that I look, and not to the temporary blindness or the 
lamentable delusions of the present moment. If this 
restriction is imposed, in twenty years we shall have 



42 

the people of Missouri thanking us for the measure, 
as Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois now thank, the old Con- 
gress for the ordinance of 1787. The existence of a 
state is not limited to a single generation. Its inhabi- 
tants, yet unborn, have claims upon our wisdom and 
our care ; and it is for us to determine what shall be 
their character and their fortunes. It is in the first 
formation of societies alone, that individuals have any 
considerable influence upon governments ; and that a 
few persons have it sometimes in their power to Ak 
the permanent character and enduring policy of 
states and nations ; to say whether their institutions 
shall be free or slavish, framed for the benefit of a 
few, or securing equal rights to all. But, after a gov- 
ernment is once formed, and the institutions of the 
country become fairly settled, though at first but 
the mere creatures of man's power, they act, in turn, 
as the masters of his will; and form auO I'ashion, to 
their own likeness, the national character of the peo- 
ple. Never was this remark more applicable than to 
the present case. It is in our power, by a single act, 
to determine the character and the policy of Missou- 
ri on this important subject, connected, as it is, with 
so many others, for all succeeding times; and to say 
whether the people whom we admit into our Union, 
shall bring to it a system of equal rights, extending 
the blessings of freedom alike to all, or introduce with 
them an odious monopoly of power and of wealth, 
unjust to its victims, and injurious to its authors. As 
we may this day decide, posterity will bless us for 
laying broad and deep the foundations of an equal 
government, or load our memories with the maledic- 
tion of ages, for mi'staking or neglecting their inter- 
ests, and forging chains for them, which we, the free- 
men of America, disdained ourselves to wear. It is 
not often that legislators have it in their power to do 
so much good, or inflitt so much evil on mankind; 
and fortunate indeed will be our lots if we are but 
found equal to the glorious task — if we are but wise, 
according to the measure of our duties, and firm and 
faithful to the end, in the discharge of this mighty 
trust. 



S9 V 



f 









• -^5. ^^ /^ 



•„ -^ 








^«^-- %/ .•^^\ \.** .'^&--. \..^^ 



















v^^^ 

■i^^ 



6^ ^ 







o. *.Tvr* A 










-^^^^ .'^W/%: "Crv<b 



















1- 't. 




- ■ • ■ft.'' 0_ * ^«M'*'\ fj) <i» ■» 



•j^^fsNVvA'^ ^ 







V*'^ ;^^^\ "^iWERT BOOKBINDING^ ^V ; 








v/> 




^T"^^.. 







^^^ 







-^v. 






' .0^ 



Si!Si;iai!ll!il!ili|!il!!Sii!!:!i 



liiii»^^ 




